pale case doctrines (introduction - canon 14)

8/18/2019 Pale Case Doctrines (Introduction - Canon 14)

1/20

Problem Areas In Legal Ethics Pale)

Justice Francisco P. Acosta

1

DOCTRINES

Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot , 74 Phil. 579Law is a profession and a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who

stoops to and adopts the practice of merchantilism by advertising his services oroffering them to the public. “The most worthy and effective advertisement possible,even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited reputation forprofessional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be theoutcome of character and conduct.” (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

Cantiller vs. Potenciano (180 SCRA 246)When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effortfor its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or theabandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which theclient had reposed on him.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach indealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary businessproposition. It is a matter of public interest.

In the Matter of Petition for Authority to Continue the Use of the Firm name “Sycip,Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo” (July 30, 1979)A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship orassociation for a particular purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the purpose ofcarrying on trade or business or of holding property.

Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic (223 SCRA 378)

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires theapplication of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Toengage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristicof the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kindof service that involves legal knowledge or skill.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includeslegal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contractby which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not bepending in a court.

In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages inthree principal types of professional activity: legal advice and instructions to

clients to inform them of their rights and obligations, preparation for clients ofdocuments requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinarylayman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess powerand authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to law,in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law.


2/20



2

When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, heis in the practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to theirlegal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter to lookafter the case in court, is also practicing law. 16 Giving advice for compensation

regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respectthereto constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion as to theproper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent,practicing law.

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of histalents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertisehis talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods.The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legalbusiness rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law isa profession.

Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it

embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special

proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients

before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients,

and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services,

assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial

body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and

insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of

estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law

means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legalprocedure, knowledge, training and experience.

Efigenia M. Tenoso Vs. Atty. Anselmo S. EchanezTime and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with publicinterest and that “a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also tohis brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in oneof the most important functions of the State — the administration of justice — as anofficer of the court.”

In Re: Argosino (270 Scra 26)

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT,INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments inthe effective and efficient administration of justice.

In RE: Petition for Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys, JUAN T. PUBLICOWhether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a great extent in the sounddiscretion of the court, The court action will depend, generally speaking, on whetheror not it decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of


3/20



3

justice will be conserved by the applicant's participation therein in the capacity of anattorney and counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission tothe bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of good moral character — a fit and properperson to practice law. The court will take into consideration the applicant's character

and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge for whichhe was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that haselapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement. (5 Am. Jur.,Sec. 301, p. 443).

EDUARDO A. ABELLA vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR. (June 18, 2013)

To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent

and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain

membership in the legal profession." This proceeds from the lawyer’s duty to

observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar’s integrity.

Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s

public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character,

honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or

disbarment.

Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,

flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the

upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the line of

grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled

as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such

scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sen se of

decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong

conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a

forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful

intent and not mere error of judgment."

IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension,disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession andtheir supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We havesaid that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission,suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of theprofession is concededly judicial.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILIONThe right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a mattersubject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatorymeasure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penaltymay be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.


4/20



4

In RE: Garcia (2 SCRA 984)The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and theSpanish state could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulationsgoverning admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for reason that the

Executive Department may not enroach upon the consitutional prerogative of theSupreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in thePhilippines, and the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reservedonly to the Congress of the Philippines.

In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S. Meiling in the 2002bar examinations and for disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar,Melendrez.It has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguishedfrom good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate inwhich he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not

a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. The standard ofpersonal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enablesa person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral character includes at leastcommon honesty.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW of BENJAMIN M. DACANAYSince Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereofterminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engagein the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jureterminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is aprivilege denied to foreigners.

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizenof another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because“all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not tohave lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, aFilipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have losthis Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.

In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]Constitutionality of Bar Integration — In all cases where the validity of Bar integrationmeasures has been put in issue, the Courts have upheld their constitutionality.

The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.

The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover,clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client,but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation; andtakes part in one of the most important functions of the State, the administrationof justice, as an officer of the court.


5/20



5

Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far andjust that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance withthe lawyer's public responsibilities.

These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action;but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no organizedbody can operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair andjust that all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such organizedbody; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so isby integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to payannual dues to the Integrated Bar.

IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVOA.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975The concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations of the

fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground forrevocation of his license to practice law is well — settled. The practice of the law is notan absolute right to be granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to beextended or withheld in the exercise of sound discretion. The standards of the legalprofession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape thepenalties of the criminal law.

Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, BM No. 1222, Feb. 4, 2004This Honorable court in the case of Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002, 383SCRA 276, pronounced the following reminder for lawyers: Members of the bar must donothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the

fidelity, the honesty and integrity of the profession. In another case, it likewiseintoned: We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrityand dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his duties tosociety, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. (Reyes v. Javier, A.C. No. 5574,February 2, 2002, 375 SCRA 538). It goes without saying that a lawyer who violates thisprecept of the profession by committing a gross misconduct which dishonors anddiminishes the publics respect for the legal profession, should be disciplined.

Alawi v. Alauya, AM No. SDO-97-2-P, Feb. 24, 1997

The term “attorney” is reserved for those who pass the Philippine Bar. Itcannot be used by those who only took and passed the Shari”a Bar.

Public officials and employees must, at all times, respect the rights of othersand refrain from doing any acts contrary to law, good morals, public policy, goodcustoms, and public order.


6/20



6

Donton v. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involvedefiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a clientin a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which

justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.

IRRI v. NLRC 221 SCRA 760This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moralturpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degreeof the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown byevery known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular convictioninvolves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all thesurrounding circumstances. While . . . generally but not always, crimes mala inse involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it, cannot always beascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime

as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala inse and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moralturpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude issomewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to theprocess of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.

Tolosa v. Cargo AM No. 2385, March 8, 1989As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character butmust also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance withthe highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Barand officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or

the keeping of mistresses 1 but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing thepublic by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, AC No. 2884, Jan. 28, 1998The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character.This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession,but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in theprofession.

Paras v. Paras, AC No. 5333, Oct. 18, 2000It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent

to admission to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential forremaining in the practice of law.

Narag v. Narag, AC No. 3405, June 29, 1998Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of thebar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, theSupreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.


7/20



7

Guevarra v. Eala, AC No. 7136, Aug. 1, 2007While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relationsbetween two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction forsuch illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.

Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexualrelations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifestsdeliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by theConstitution and affirmed by our laws.

Arciga v. Maniwang, AC No. 1608, Aug. 14, 1981

An applicant for admission to the bar should have good moral character. He isrequired to produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moralcharacter and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have beenfiled or are pending in any court.

If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the

continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retainingmembership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminatedwhen a lawyer ceases to have good moral character (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil.865).

A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of hisconviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar shouldhave moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to whatis "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquitywhich render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The ruleimplies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced

may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or

shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good andrespectable members of the community" (7 C.J.S. 959).

Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child becamepregnant by reason of intimacy with a married lawyer who was the father of sixchildren, disbarment of the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct wasjustified (In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896).

There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance with thecanons of the moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because hismisbehavior or deviation from the path of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous.It is in connection with a lawyer's behavior to the opposite sex where the questionof immorality usually arises. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a womannot his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as"grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the surrounding circumstances.


8/20



8

Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, AC No. 4256, Feb. 13, 2004 A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wifeand maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.

Gonzalez v. Alcaraz, AC No. 5321, Sept. 27, 2006 Well-established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to

a class of their own. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently ofcivil and criminal cases. Settled is the rule that, being based on a differentquantum of proof, the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiencyof evidence does not necessarily foreclose the finding of guilt in anadministrative proceeding.

Whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may bedisbarred or suspended for misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of actsshowing their unworthiness as officers of the courts; as well as their lack of moralcharacter, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. When the misconduct

committed outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them tobe morally unfit for the office and the privileges conferred upon them by theirlicense and the law, they may be suspended or disbarred.

Gonzaga v. Realubin, AC No. 1955, March 14, 1995

This refers to a complaint filed by the Gonzaga brothers, Napoleon and Ricardo,for the disbarment of Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin on grounds of "malpractice, grossmisconduct and violation of oath of office".

Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it involves public interestin a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventingthose who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing

upon the public and the court and administrative offices generally.

Chua v. Mesina, AC No. 4904, Aug. 12, 2004As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transactionmust be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faithwhich an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higherstandard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at “arms length.”Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouragedby the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to assurethat no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is founded on publicpolicy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage

of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence orimprobability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor.

Reyes v. Gaa, AM No. 1048, July 14, 1995Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as toaffect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may bedisciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds


9/20



9

Melendrez v. Decena, AC No. 2104, Aug. 24, 1989

Lawyers cannot "without special authority, compromise their clients' litigation orreceive anything in discharge of a client's claim, but the full amount in cash.

Generally, a lawyer should not be suspended or disbarred for misconductcommitted in his personal or non-professional capacity. Where however,misconduct outside his professional dealings becomes so patent and so gross asto demonstrate moral unfitness to remain in the legal profession, the Court mustsuspend or strike out the lawyer's name from the Rollo of Attorneys. 7 The natureof the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of goodmoral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admissionto the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining inthe practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Grossmisconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge ofprofessional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in

serious doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

In Re Soriano, G.R. No. L-24114, June 30, 1970

The entry of appearance of a counsel in a case which has long been sealed andterminated by a final judgment, besides being an unmitigated absurdity in itselfand an unwarranted annoyance to the court which pronounced the judgment, isa sore deviation from normal judicial processes. It detracts heavily from the faithwhich should be accorded final judgments of courts of justice, generating as itdoes in the minds of the litigants, as well as of the public, an illusory belief thatsomething more can be done toward overturning a final judicial mandate.

Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to

obtain the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. And if thiscannot be had, then he should, at the very least, give notice to such lawyer ofthe contemplated substitution.

Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113, March 25, 1975Every member of the bar should realize that candor in the dealings with the Court is ofthe very essence of honorable membership in the profession.

Tan Tek Beng v. David, 126 SCRA 389, 1983 Malpractice involves soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally

or through paid agents or brokers.

Practice of law is a profession, not a business.

Khan, Jr. v. Simbillo, AC No. 5299, Aug. 19, 2003

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is aprofession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primaryconsideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of alivelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and


10/20



10

to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers,who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed.However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of

the legal profession and must not be misleading. If it is made in a modest anddecorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.

Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie, AC No. 2131, May 10, 1985Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines.Respondents’ use of the firm name constitutes a representation that they could “renderlegal services of the higher quality to multinational business enterprises and othersengaged in foreign trade and investment.” This is unethical, as Baker & McKenzie isunauthorized to practice here.

Rabanal v. Tugalde, AC No. 1372, June 27, 2002

The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was aprofessional relationship which merits attorneys fees for professional servicesrendered. A written contract is not an essential element in the employment ofan attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation,it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought andreceived in any matter pertinent to his profession.

To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client shouldhave employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. . . It is notnecessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for:neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertakethe case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his

business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in hisprofessional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice orassistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in suchconsultation, then the professional employment must be regarded asestablished.

Williams v. Entiquez, AC No. 6353, Feb. 27, 2006Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her abilityand with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legaldevelopments, and participate in continuing legal education programs. Thus, inchampioning the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be

guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewiseespouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on atechnical ground.


11/20



11

Dinsay v. Cioco, AC No. 2995, Nov. 27, 1996

The doctrine of res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicialproceedings and not to the exercise of the [Courts] administrative powers, as inthis case.

As a general rule, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplinedas a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as agovernment official. However, if that misconduct as a government official is ofsuch a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moraldelinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground.

Santiago v. Sagucio, AC No. 6705, March 30, 2006A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflictinginterests." However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition torepresent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, whena written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or when

no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover, considering the seriousconsequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clearpreponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrativepenalty.

Huysen v. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707, March 29, 2006

Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have morerestrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to bemore severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promoteor advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public

duties.

PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 151809-12, April 12, 2005

Rule 6.03 “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, acceptengagement or employment in connection with any matter which he hadintervened while in said service.”

“Matter” is defined any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transactionor conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not merely anact of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures,regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. The act of advising theCentral Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank”s liquidation and even filingthe petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila is not the “matter”contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On the other hand, “intervention” is defined as: 1: the act or fact of intervening:INTERPOSITION; 2: interference that may affect the interests of others.


12/20



12

Samala v. Palana, AC No. 6595, April 15, 2005A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Tothis end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which mighttend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and

integrity of the profession.

Leda v. Tabang, AC No. 2505, Feb. 21, 1992

Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from thelawyers appearing and pleading before them.

It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character isnot only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continuedpossession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law (People v.Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 692). As so aptly putby Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm: "As good character is an essential qualification

for admission of an attorney to practice, when the attorney's character is bad insuch respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with thepowers of an attorney, the courts retain the power to discipline him (Piatt v.Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 [1933]).

Camacho v. Panguluyan, AC No. 4807, March 22, 2000A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with aparty represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate orcompromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbentupon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party

not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.

Castillo v. Padilla, Jr. AC No. 2339, Feb. 24, 1984Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due tothe courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive personality and to advanceno fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required bythe justice of the cause with which he is charged. The Canons of Professional Ethicslikewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel.

Andres v. Cabrera, AC No. 585, Dec. 14, 1979The power to punish persons for contempt is inherent in all courts and essential to the

preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of their lawfulorders and decisions (Montalban v. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1). A lawyer who usesintemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays disrespect to the court,disgraces the Bar and invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power. (SurigaoMineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, L-27072, Jan. 9, 1970, 31 SCRA 1; In re Almacen,31 SCRA 562; Montecillo v. Gica, 6Q SCRA 234). Such power, however, should beexercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle and on the correctiveand not on the retaliatory idea of punishment. (Weigal v. Shuster, 11 Phil. 340;


13/20



13

Villavicencio v. Lucban, 39 Phil. 778; People v. Marcos, 70 Phil. 468, 480; Victorino v.Espiritu, 5 SCRA 653; Reliance Procoma, Inc. v. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corp., 57 SCRA 370,Fontelera v. Amores, 70 SCRA 37). Furthermore, contempt power should not be utilizedfor mere satisfaction of natural inclination to strike back at a party who has shown

lesser respect to the dignity of the court. (Royeca v. Animas, 71 SCRA 1).

Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010, 1 SCRA 396

It is the generally accepted rule that counsel, parties, or witnesses are exemptedfrom liability in libel or slander for words otherwise defamatory published in thecourse of judicial proceedings, provided that the statements are connected with,or relevant, pertinent or material to, the cause in hand or subject of inquiry (see53 C.J.S. 170-171; Tupas vs. Parrenño, et al., G.R. No. L-12545, April 30, 1959,and authorities cited therein). For, as aptly observed in one case, “while thedoctrine of privileged communications is liable to be abused, and its abuse maylead to great hardships, yet to give legal sanction to such suits as the present

would, we think, give rise to far greater hardships.” TEST OF RELEVANCY: in order that matter alleged in a pleading may be

privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by thepleadings. It must be legitimately related or so pertinent to the subject ofcontroversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in course of trial.

In Re Laureta, March 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 382The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a

shield for contemptuous acts against the Court.

Yap Tan v. Sabandal, BM No. 44, Nov. 29, 1983

Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a greatextent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court thathe is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.

Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, July 14, 2004The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorizedpractice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that thepractice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education andcharacter. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limitedprivilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral andprofessional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and

the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law andnot subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to seethat this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin himnot to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to makepossible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And,the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid alayman in the unauthorized practice of law.


14/20



14

Republic v. Kenrick Development Corp., 529 Phil. 876 (2006)

Only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validlyconvert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. Counsel’sauthority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He may not delegate

it to just any person. Procedural requirements which have been labeled as meretechnicalities have their own valid raison d’ eitre. To summarily brush them asidemay result in arbitrariness and injustice. Procedural rules are promulgated intolaw designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and while the court relatedthe rules from time to time, it must not let it be the last bastion for erringlitigants.

The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the

pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a

good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under the Rules

of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to these

matters.

Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008Sec. 34 or Rule 138 recognizes the right of an individual to represent himself in anycase to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigationpersonally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must either bepersonal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The individual litigant maypersonally do everything in the course of proceedings from commencement to thetermination of the litigation. Considering that a party personally conducting hislitigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as those qualified

to practice law, petitioner, not being a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into thesnares and hazards of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz as plaintiff, at his owninstance, can personally conduct the litigation. He would then be acting not as a counselor lawyer, but as a party exercising his right to represent himself.

Five J. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 11474, Aug. 22, 1994

Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential DecreeNo. 1691, states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any laborarbiter only (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if they represent theirorganization or the members thereof.

Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and

recover from his client a reasonable compensation for his services necessarilyimports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for therecovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless the client'srepresentative is a lawyer.

Director of Lands v. Adorable, No. 8197, Oct. 2, 1946Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and appellees, acting under the higheststandards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the


15/20



15

bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant-appellant's ignorance of what reallyhappened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decidedin favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect thecopy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to

save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case and thistribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.

Florido v. Florido, AC No. 5624, Jan. 20, 2004

Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on thejudiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is assertedby counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verificationof allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognitionthen that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of aclients cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth.

A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as

befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Thelawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court andopposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed byone gentlemen to another.

Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-71177, Oct. 28, 1988For a lawyer’s duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulentclaims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that whilelawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their client’s cause ordefending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of justice. Theoffice of attorney does not permit, much less demand, to support a client’s case,

violation of law or otherwise, fraud or chicanery. A lawyer must obey his ownconscience and not that of his client.

Gavida v. Sales, Jr. G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997Every pleading before the COMELEC must be printed, mimeographed or typewritten inlegal size bond paper and filed in at least ten (10) legible copies. Pleadings must befiled directly with the proper Clerk of Court of the COMELEC personally, or, byregistered mail. Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by theCOMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court. A facsimile is not agenuine and authentic pleading.

MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. G.R. No. 170633, Oct. 17, 2007Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document underthe Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or othermeans, showing to reflect the data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in evidence asan electronic data message or to be considered as the functional equivalent of anoriginal document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an“electronic data message” or an “electronic document.


16/20



16

Bagasing v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090, Jan. 19, 2001

But a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his clients cause (Buenasedav. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656). He should not forget that he is an officer of thecourt, bound to exert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy

and efficient administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12, Canons ofProfessional Responsibility (Gomez v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 15, Ozamis City,249 SCRA 432, 439). He should not , therefore, misuse the rules of procedure todefeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03. Canon 10 of the Canons of ProfessionalResponsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment ormisuse court processes, in accordance with Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the sameCanons (Ibid).

Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in theadministration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstructthe administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty.

Ang v. Castro, G.R. No. 66371, May 15, 1985The use of disrespectful or contemptuous language against a particular judge inpleadings presented in another court or proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt asit is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge asto interrupt the administration of justice. Stated differently, if the pleading containingderogatory, offensive or malicious statements is submitted in the same court or judgein which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because it is equivalent toa misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interruptthe administration of justice.

Rheem of the Phils. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967By now, a lawyer's duties to the Court have become common place. Really, there couldhardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section 20 (b), Rule138 of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: "To observeand maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." As explicitis the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that "[i]t is the duty of the lawyer tomaintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporaryincumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance."That same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to supportthe courts against "unjust criticism and clamor." And more. The attorney's oath solemnlybinds him to a conduct that should be "with all good fidelity . . . to the courts." Worth

remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts "can only be maintained byrendering no service involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound touphold."

Ceniza v. Sebastian, G.R. No. L-39914, July 2, 1984Contempt power inay be availed of by a judge, who is the victim of insulting andoffensive epithets. A member of the bar as an officer of the court is not justified to usevile and disrespectful language. If there be such a failing on his part, he cannot


17/20



17

complain if he is adjudged guilty of contempt, Where the words appear in a pleadingsubmitted to the Court, that is contempt in facie curiae and therefore may be dealtwith in a summary manner.

Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaintagainst a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsmanis duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it,referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and administrativeaspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether anadministrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsmanis already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman wouldnot know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for andrecognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in determiningwhether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon not only

administrative liabilities but also other administrative concerns, as is clearly conveyedin the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez.

Angeles v. Desierto, G.R. No. 133077, Sept. 8, 2006

Time and again, the Court has ruled that the Ombudsman has the full discretionto determine whether a criminal complaint should be dismissed or the necessaryInformation be filed in the appropriate court. His determination and evaluationof the adequacy of evidence in this regard are unfettered. His is an exercise ofpowers based upon a constitutional mandate and the courts should not interferein such exercise.

Indeed, we have consistently ruled that unless there are good and compelling

reasons, we cannot interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatingand prosecutory powers. Without good and compelling reasons to indicateotherwise, the Court cannot freely interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of hisinvestigatory and prosecutory powers. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith ifhe finds it to be insufficient in form or substance or if he otherwise finds noground to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation ifthe complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form. However, while theOmbudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal caseshould be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing his action when thereis an abuse of discretion.

Laxina v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 153155, Sept. 30, 2005 At the onset, it must be stressed that the rule on forum-shopping applies only to

judicial cases or proceedings, and not to administrative cases.

The mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring publicofficials, derived from both the Constitution and the law gives it jurisdiction overthe complaint against petitioner. The Constitution has named the Ombudsmanand his Deputies as the protectors of the people who shall act promptly on


18/20



18

complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees ofthe government.

Diman v. Alumbres, 299 SCRA 459 (1998)

It is also the law which determines when a summary judgment is proper. Itdeclares that although the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues of fact-- e.g., there are denials of, or a conflict in, factual allegations -- if it is shownby admissions, depositions or affidavits, that those issues are sham, fictitious, ornot genuine, or, in the language of the Rules, that "except as to the amount ofdamages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movingparty is entiled to a judgment as a matter of law, the Court shall render asummary judgment for the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be.

Parenthetically, the existence or appearance of ostensible issues in thepleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other,are what distinguish a proper case for a summary judgment from one for a

judgment on the pleadings under Rule 19 of the 1964 Rules. In the latter case,there is no ostensible issue at all, but the absence of any because of the failureof the defending party's answer to raise an issue.

On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist -- i.e., facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet noadmission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defensesare in truth set out in the answer -- but the issues thus arising from the pleadingsare sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown by admissions, depositions oradmissions. In other words, as a noted authority remarks, a judgment on thepleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded while a summary judgment is ajudgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or

admissions. Another distinction is that while the remedy of a judgment on thepleadings may be sought only by a claimant (one seeking to recover upon a claim,counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief, supra), a summaryjudgment may be applied for by either a claimant or a defending party.

Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, AC No. 7006, Oct. 9, 2007Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecuteand defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolvedby law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certainobligations.[18] Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyerto observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he]

should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyershall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.

P/Supt. Hansel Marantan v. Atty. Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 205956, Feb. 12, 2014The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosure pertaining to the judicialproceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court or obstructing


19/20



19

the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirectcontempt under Sec. 3(d) Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

In Re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970• For his “intestiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burdenmore basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior towardthe courts.”• The decisions of the judge must be obeyed because he is the tribunal appointedto decide, and the bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering respectfulsubmission.

Cabansag v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974, Oct. 18, 1957Courts have the power to preserve their integrity and maintain their dignity withoutwhich their administration of justice is bound to falter or fail. This is the preservative

power to punish for contempt. This power is inherent in all courts and essential to theirright of self- preservation. In order that it may conduct its business unhampered bypublications which tend to impair the impartiality of its decisions or otherwise obstructthe administration of justice, the court will not hesitate to exercise it regardless of whois affected. For, "as important as is the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and thefree exercise of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance of the independence of thejudiciary." The reason for this is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability oftheir institution. Without such guaranty, said institution would be resting on a veryshaky foundation.

People v. Nadera, Jr. 324 SCRA 490, 2000

Only faithful performance by counsel of his duty towards his client can givemeaning and substance to the accused's right to due process and to be presumedinnocent until proven otherwise. Hence, a lawyer's duty, especially that of adefense counsel, must not be taken lightly. It must be performed with all thezeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the accused'sfundamental rights.

Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and protecthis rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-appellant to be.The performance of this duty was all the more imperative because the life ofaccused-appellant hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because he wascounsel de oficio.

People v. Espina, 45 SCRA 614, 1972the decision aforementioned be set aside and that the case be remanded to the lowercourt for new trial, upon the authority of several decisions of this Court, 1 there beingnothing in the record to indicate that the meaning of the charges preferred against thedefendants had been adequately explained to them and that they were reasonablyposted on the import of the plea of guilty entered by them.


20/20



20

Francisco v. Portugal, AC No. 6155, March 14, 2006The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate theattorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to

withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that anattorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to itsconclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s rightto withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client’swritten consent or from a good cause.

Villafuerte v. Cortez, G.R. No. 3455, April 14, 1998A lawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of theresponsibilities that should be expected of him.[3] He is mandated to exert his best

efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Codeof Professional Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its dictum than when it has statedthat a "lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence," decreeing furtherthat he "shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."

pale case doctrines (introduction - canon 14)

Documents